The top 3 teams earn the equivalent of 83% of the leagues profits not revenues.

You are correct in your assessment about some franchises. I believe that ultimately the NHL will have to fold some locations since they really will never be viable and will only survive if both the owners and players engage in revenue sharing for those marginal teams.

I view the owners and players as partners. A 50-50 share of revenues (not profits) gives both parties a common interest to expand the sport. I believe it is unrealistic for the players to assume whatever moves the owners make is the owners problem alone. If franchises close and the league shrinks does hockey become a more regional sport than it is? Perhaps NBC loses all interest as does many sponsors? I love how the players complain about the owners inability to control the players salaries and the poor business decisions the owners make yet the players are the direct beneficiaries of both actions until the CBA expires. I would love to work in a business that paid me 50% of the revenues and let the owner worry whether he can make money on his 50%.

I agree with every word you've said, which is why I am not "pro player" but rather anti-both parties. Both sides are so outrageously unaware of the realities of their business. I will admit that seeing all of the "pro owner" sentiment on HF boards irks me to no end. Any objective evaluation of this lockout reveals that both sides are acting reprehensibly. I wish them all a good deal of hurt (not physically) for their handling of this.

These players and the comments that they're making towards Bettman are just getting ridiculous.

That's fine if you don't like the man. But it's just unbelievable that they seemingly (and conveniently) forget that HE isn't the one who actually locked them out. It was THEIR employers, the Owners, because as has been pointed out MANY times before, the Owners voted 30-0 in favor of a lockout. As I've stated before, he's simply the messenger for the Owners. Sure, he has rules in place, like the fines and whatnot, but they didn't have to agree to them and keep him around if they didn't agree with it.

But these players who are insulting him, are really insulting the Owners, and are letting what should be strictly business get WAAAAY to personal.

These players and the comments that they're making towards Bettman are just getting ridiculous.

That's fine if you don't like the man. But it's just unbelievable that they seemingly (and conveniently) forget that HE isn't the one who actually locked them out. It was THEIR employers, the Owners. As I've stated before, he's simply the messenger for the Owners. Sure, he has rules in place, like the fines and whatnot, but they didn't have to agree to them and keep him around if they didn't agree with it.

But these players who are insulting him, are really insulting the Owners, and are letting what should be strictly business get WAAAAY to personal.

This dispute has gotten personal on both sides to the extent that it's outrageous.

The players seem to want "retribution" for a deal that turned out to be pretty darn good for them. Many of them seem uninformed and unwilling to inform themselves, and a small number of that same group see it fit to whine about the woeful injustices they are facing while simultaneously uploading pictures of their beachfront homes and Ferraris.

The owners, in turn, are willing to prolong this dispute in order to score wins on secondary items when they've already "won the war." How would you feel if your employer had you agree to a pay cut but continued to deny you of a paycheck until you agreed to forfeit your ability to use the vending machine in the employee lounge? That the owners are doing this can only be interpreted as petty and personal.

This entire dispute has become so petty and personal that it disgusts me.

This is actually untrue. I just used Forbes' #s (not perfect, but certainly not wildly far off) and calculated this:

Salaries aside, the average operating costs for each team average ~$50M.
The top 20 teams gross a total of ~$2.3B in revenue (/20 = an avg. of ~$115M revenue/team).
57% of $2.3B is ~$1.3B (/20 = ~$65M salary cap).
Thus, with 57% of revenues going to players and another $50M/team for operations, the league could break even.

Thus, the NHL could operate at break-even (the actual #s show them coming out just above) by lopping off the bottom 10 teams and maintaining a 57% salary cap.

I'm actually not even advocating for a 57% salary cap, I'm just saying that the league's problem isn't the salary cap, the problem is a handful of poorly located and/or poorly run franchises.

So you're saying that the teams would need 115M to break even. Go check your list and see how many teams had 115M or more in revenue then get back to me. You just created a ton of teams losing money.

actually no Crosby isnt needed. If Crosby disappears off the face of the earth tomorrow, does the league die? No it moves on.

Crosby by himself, no; Crosby along with the 699 other top flight players? Yes.

Quote:

fact is, the players need the owners just as much. A good majority of North American players have ZERO interest in playing overseas on a permanent basis. Most dont even care to play an entire season over there. No matter what, the players need the owners.

if the players didnt need the owners, and sorry your sad sack reasoning that the government, community etc could run the team is laughable.

Green Bay, Saskatchewan, United of Manchester all do okay running their franchises, despite your belief to the contrary.

Quote:

Then they become owners, you think they will accept operating at losses. Thats a ridiculous argument. If the owners werent needed, the players would ALL be in Europe right now. They fully know the cash is here in North America which is why they are willing to fall off a cliff to try and win this CBA

Guess why the Pens and San Jose had an operating loss this year? (Hint: It's not because of the players).

Why would the players all be in Europe right now? No player wants to be on the 3 teams mentioned above because the community owns them? That's pretty laughable if you believe that.

This dispute has gotten personal on both sides to the extent that it's outrageous.

The players seem to want "retribution" for a deal that turned out to be pretty darn good for them. Many of them seem uninformed and unwilling to inform themselves, and a small number of that same group see it fit to whine about the woeful injustices they are facing while simultaneously uploading pictures of their beachfront homes and Ferraris.

The owners, in turn, are willing to prolong this dispute in order to score wins on secondary items of this lockout. How would you feel if your employer denied you a paycheck until you agreed to forfeit your ability to use the vending machine in the employee lounge?

This entire dispute has become so petty and personal that it disgusts me.

I know, I know. It's not hard to find something to be Uber-Pissed about when looking at both sides. Right now I'm leaning towards the Owners' side of things, only because of how the whole "negotiating" has transpired from the Players side. Their lack of interest in beginning negotiations the previous year, taking a whole month to respond to the Owners' initial proposal, submitting multiple (wasn't it something like 5?) proposals all of them with De-Linkage, something that they KNEW the league wasn't going to go for.

And lastly, Don Fehr. With his 2 PC's claiming that the 2 sides were "In Agreement on Money" when in the 1st one, they were just about a Billion Dollars apart, and the 2nd one being contingent on the PA accepting EVERYTHING in the proposal and they didn't, therefore leading one to a conclusion that they were in fact, no close on $$. Those 2 shenanigans alone has just gotten me furious with the Union. Especially after reading the NESN article on the ouster of Paul Kelly. After reading that the NHLPA just REEKS of corruption.

And I'm sure that the Owners are no angles either...but at the end of the day, I'd rather have a HEALTHY NHL (something the players can't grasp) than one that is on life-support/dead.

So you're saying that the teams would need 115M to break even. Go check your list and see how many teams had 115M or more in revenue then get back to me. You just created a ton of teams losing money.

About 10 bring in ~$115 or more. The next ten bring in ~90-115. Guess what? Those teams might have to figure out a way to spend $10-20M in operating costs than the Maple Leafs. They'll figure it out (a handful of teams currently do).

Really? cuz it seems every time the NHL comes out with a "final offer" they seem to come up with an even better one the long the NHLPA holds out.

Yet despite the offer being slightly "better", the games lost are always worth more $ to the players than the gains they get from waiting out. Like... hey guys we got an extra $80M added, too bad we lost an extra $100M in wages to get it.

About 10 bring in ~$115 or more. The next ten bring in ~90-115. Guess what? Those teams might have to figure out a way to spend $10-20M in operating costs than the Maple Leafs. They'll figure it out (a handful of teams currently do).

My point stands - all you did was make a bunch of new money losing teams.

For fun - get rid of the top 3 and then see how many healthy teams there are. The bottom teams aren't the problem.

Crosby by himself, no; Crosby along with the 699 other top flight players? Yes.

Green Bay, Saskatchewan, United of Manchester all do okay running their franchises, despite your belief to the contrary.

Guess why the Pens and San Jose had an operating loss this year? (Hint: It's not because of the players).

Why would the players all be in Europe right now? No player wants to be on the 3 teams mentioned above because the community owns them? That's pretty laughable if you believe that.

699 other players are not going to find jobs else where. That ludicrous. At most, a 100 in Europe and likely much less seeing as many would be happy earning the cash in north America.

I said it was laughable because an owner is an owner. Owners are replaceable, it doesnt mean the next owner will accept losing money. Thats why your argument of replaceable owners is laughable. You seem to think their are endless owners willing to lose money. Thats simply idiotic.

Your reading comprehension needs some work, and second you stated those 3 teams. i didnt say no one wants to play for them and i believe that. Stop making things up and stating that i said things when you brought up those teams. Players would be flocking to Europe right now if as you say NHL owners are easily replaceable middle men. Basically you are saying they dont need the NHL and its owners. If that was the case, they would be playing elsewhere earning the big bucks. They arent running elsewhere because they know the NHL is their cash cow.

My point stands - all you did was make a bunch of new money losing teams.

For fun - get rid of the top 3 and then see how many healthy teams there are. The bottom teams aren't the problem.

No, I didn't. I created 10+ teams that can be profitable while spending at above average rates and <10 teams that will need to figure out how to spend less than average in order to make a profit. Geez, this is starting to sound like a business!

EDIT: Further, you are right that the top teams skew the system. Lo and behold, a socialized system for labor isn't working...whoda thunk? God I hate socialism...

No, I didn't. I created 10+ teams that can be profitable while spending at above average rates and <10 teams that will need to figure out how to spend less than average in order to make a profit. Geez, this is starting to sound like a business!

EDIT: Further, you are right that the top teams skew the system. Lo and behold, a socialized system for labor isn't working...whoda thunk? God I hate socialism...

If you hate socialism better encourage the NHLPA to disband. It's the Players Unions that began the "socialized system for labour" in the nhl. I assure you that the NHL owners were very content to pay the players under market value back in the 50s and 60s.

If you hate socialism better encourage the NHLPA to disband. It's the Players Unions that began the "socialized system for labour" in the nhl. I assure you that the NHL owners were very content to pay the players under market value back in the 50s and 60s.

Generally speaking, I am not a pro-union guy. In this dispute, I am certainly not pro PA. My point against the owners' system was just that - a point against the business model conceived by the owners...it was absolutely not a point in "favor" of the union.

As an aside, I guarantee you that the owners prefer the socialized system for labor over the free market system.

Generally speaking, I am not a pro-union guy. In this dispute, I am certainly not pro PA. My point against the owners' system was just that - a point against the business model conceived by the owners...it was absolutely not a point in "favor" of the union.

As an aside, I guarantee you that the owners prefer the socialized system for labor over the free market system.

Of course the owners prefer this system over the one in place in the decade prior to the 2004 lockout. However I can assure that they would much prefer the system of thinly veiled collusion and no players union in existence during the 40s and 50s that saw Maurice Richard being the highest paid player in 1950 with a salary of $10,000.

699 other players are not going to find jobs else where. That ludicrous. At most, a 100 in Europe and likely much less seeing as many would be happy earning the cash in north America.

I said it was laughable because an owner is an owner. Owners are replaceable, it doesnt mean the next owner will accept losing money. Thats why your argument of replaceable owners is laughable. You seem to think their are endless owners willing to lose money. Thats simply idiotic.

Your reading comprehension needs some work, and second you stated those 3 teams. i didnt say no one wants to play for them and i believe that. Stop making things up and stating that i said things when you brought up those teams. Players would be flocking to Europe right now if as you say NHL owners are easily replaceable middle men. Basically you are saying they dont need the NHL and its owners. If that was the case, they would be playing elsewhere earning the big bucks. They arent running elsewhere because they know the NHL is their cash cow.

An Owner is an owner and they are the only people who can own and they are all ownering, right?

And you clearly need help with contractions and homonyms, so please stick to the topic at hand. Nice troll attempt though, brah.

I've cited at the very least two ownership groups who lose money because they choose to (Pittsburgh and San Jose).

What you said:

Quote:

if the players didnt need the owners, and sorry your sad sack reasoning that the government, community etc could run the team is laughable.

What I said:

Quote:

Green Bay, Saskatchewan, United of Manchester all do okay running their franchises, despite your belief to the contrary.

So three examples of teams that run in an effective manner through a community has nothing to do with your assertion that my "sad sack reasoning that the government, community etc could run the team is laughable"? Uhh, okay then?

Yes, no one plays the game because they dreamed of winning a Stanley Cup when they were younger. They play there now because of the Stanley Cup and because it's the best league in the world; if a new league were to be created and the top 700 players played there instead, what's stopping that league from becoming the best in the world?

I have already stated that a new league would eventually be created to replace the NHL; it could take a while but it would happen.

Green Bay, Saskatchewan, United of Manchester all do okay running their franchises, despite your belief to the contrary.

Are you talking about the Packers? They're publicly owned but they're not run by the shareholders or the community, as far as I can tell. It's not like they have a public vote every time a business decision is made.